Problems with Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[chadman]

Then why do I have to repeat myself.

Because if you say it enough times with enough fervency, you will make it true? Because not everybody believes you no matter how many times you say it. But please, do keep repeating it, even when off topic. It is your defining mantra. :tongue3:

 

[DHK]

Because if you say it enough times with enough fervency, you will make it true? Because not everybody believes you no matter how many times you say it. But please, do keep repeating it, even when off topic. It is your defining mantra. :tongue3:

I quote by experience.
I quote factually.
If you can prove me wrong please do so.
If you can't prove me wrong, then why do you not believe?

Julian Huxley said: "I do not believe in evolution because it is credible; I believe in evolution because belief in God is too incredible."

Are you and others like Julian Huxley?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What is your diffinition of "contextually"? I found this difinition:

Contextual Theology = ...a way of doing theology in which one takes into account: the spirit and message of the gospel; the tradition of the Christian people; the culture in which one is theologizing; and social change in that culture, whether brought about by western technological process or the grass-roots struggle for equality, justice and liberation.

In other words, the Bible in, and of itself, is not free-standing....other factors (culture, ethnicity, history) must be taken into consideration, and with those factors, the message of the Bible must be adjusted to fit. Faith Undone by Roger Oakland pg. 42 & 43.

Is this what you mean????? If not please give what you mean by this....Thanks!!!!!

When i'm speaking about scripture It is. However, you've quoted me speaking to DHK who did not take what I said in the context of me saying it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There are over one billion Muslims in this world today. I have never yet met a Muslim who doesn't believe that I believe in the worship of three different gods--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--3 separate gods. That is their perception of Christianity, and they teach it to all their followers.
If you try to teach them otherwise they will deny it, for even the Koran teaches that the Christians believe in three gods.

This is an example of Muslim revisionist history.

It is no different than what the Catholics have been doing throughout the centuries. They have been twisting the beliefs of true believers in Christ and accusing them of beliefs that they never had. To totally rely on the history of the enemies of Biblical Christianity is foolishness. It has been distorted and skewed.

Even the ECF had some strange ideas. Ireaneus for example believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80.

The Question then DHK is if as you suggest the Catholic Church were to dispense of all the muslim writings and artifacts, and buildings and act as if they never existed and all we had to go on was the writings of "Catholic Monks" Would you have made the connection - Well baptist were known as muslims in the 5th century. I mean all we would know right is.
1) they abhore statues
2) they believed in Christ
3) they held to a strict moral code
4) they were prolific writers but unfortunately we don't have their works because of the Catholic Conspiracy
5) They grew around the regon of Saudi Arabia primarily at Mecca and Medina.
6) they were zealous for God.

And that would be about it because anything else that the catholics would say would automatically be discredited by you and others as being false. So then you would draw you lineage to the Waldenseians to the Muslims to the Paulicans to the Montanist. Even though each of these groups are distinctive enough from the baptist as not to be a forerunner.

 

[chadman]

The Question then DHK is if as you suggest the Catholic Church were to dispense of all the muslim writings and artifacts, and buildings and act as if they never existed and all we had to go on was the writings of "Catholic Monks" Would you have made the connection - Well baptist were known as muslims in the 5th century. I mean all we would know right is.
1) they abhore statues
2) they believed in Christ
3) they held to a strict moral code
4) they were prolific writers but unfortunately we don't have their works because of the Catholic Conspiracy
5) They grew around the regon of Saudi Arabia primarily at Mecca and Medina.
6) they were zealous for God.

And that would be about it because anything else that the catholics would say would automatically be discredited by you and others as being false. So then you would draw you lineage to the Waldenseians to the Muslims to the Paulicans to the Montanist. Even though each of these groups are distinctive enough from the baptist as not to be a forerunner.

Then an interesting question you just brought up. Did the RCC crush all the Muslim texts and create spurious text to make them seem Catholic? We know they went to war with them. Do any trustworthy statements of faith still exist from the early Muslim days?

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Question then DHK is if as you suggest the Catholic Church were to dispense of all the muslim writings and artifacts, and buildings and act as if they never existed and all we had to go on was the writings of "Catholic Monks" Would you have made the connection - Well baptist were known as muslims in the 5th century. I mean all we would know right is.
1) they abhore statues
2) they believed in Christ
3) they held to a strict moral code
4) they were prolific writers but unfortunately we don't have their works because of the Catholic Conspiracy
5) They grew around the regon of Saudi Arabia primarily at Mecca and Medina.
6) they were zealous for God.

And that would be about it because anything else that the catholics would say would automatically be discredited by you and others as being false. So then you would draw you lineage to the Waldenseians to the Muslims to the Paulicans to the Montanist. Even though each of these groups are distinctive enough from the baptist as not to be a forerunner.

Your own salvation is inseparably attached to your own view of salvation which you defend as a progressive justification rather than an initial completed state with initial faith in the gospel. As far as I can understand your own testimony you have no initial gospel experience but rather a progressive transformational experience in keeping with the fundemental Roman Catholic view of progressive justification. Hence, no wonder you defend the Roman Catholic Church as a true church of Christ and their history as the true history of Christianity as you are fundementally united with them in their basic premise of salvation through progressive justification.

Since you openly oppose the gospel of Jesus Christ (as completed justification in connection with the initial gospel and progressive justification are irreconciable opposites - Rom. 3:27) then it is a waste of time to discuss Catholic History with you as you have a vested spiritual interest in vindicating their historical perspective as your own personal view of salvation is logically inseparable from vindication of them as a "true" church. For if their view of the gospel and salvation is "accursed" then obviously their history is the history of an "accursed" institution with an "accursed" gospel and that would greatly substantiate the charge of a revisionist history as true churches with the true gospel must be sought outside of Rome and its historical perspective.

You cannot discredit Rome or the historical perspective of Rome without discrediting your own view of the gospel and justification as their institution and history is a defense of your own soteriological essentials.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your own salvation is inseparably attached to your own view of salvation which you defend as a progressive justification rather than an initial completed state with initial faith in the gospel.

See you're funny. I've been discussing on the other thread how someone reading the same scriptures can come to a different conclussion about faith than you seem to believe such as in justification. At no time in our discussion have I mentioned that I believe in progressive justification. Yet you immediately make it personal. You assume I hold to that view. When I'm showing you the falacy of belief that if we are truly bible alone we will have the same view with regard to the basis of the faith. I've shown you differently. So at this point you don't really know my position on justification. You only know that I've given good support for progressive justification with in the writings of the NT and can provide more if I chose but I made it simple.

As far as I can understand your own testimony you have no initial gospel experience but rather a progressive transformational experience in keeping with the fundemental Roman Catholic view of progressive justification.

I also find this funny. I suggest you read my testimony again. The only thing that you can pin on me that would be similar to this is that I believe Christianity has evolved somewhat from the 1st Century and there isn't any real going back. Now that doesn't mean there is new revelation. contrarily how we understand and apply the ancient faith has evolved. But it still doesn't match with your assertion. I'm speaking from a purely historical sense here and matched it with fact. The current day baptist were no more like the 1st Century Christians than the Current day Catholic or Orthodox. However, this doesn't affect any view on justification.

Hence, no wonder you defend the Roman Catholic Church as a true church of Christ and their history as the true history of Christianity as you are fundementally united with them in their basic premise of salvation through progressive justification.

I've never said the Catholic Church was the True Church of Christ I've shown their views and progressive history of the Catholic Church which has evolved into all the divergent churches of today to include Copts and Orthodox. You still don't know what my view of Justification is.

Since you openly oppose the gospel of Jesus Christ (as completed justification in connection with the initial gospel and progressive justification are irreconciable opposites - Rom. 3:27) then it is a waste of time to discuss Catholic History with you as you have a vested spiritual interest in vindicating their historical perspective as your own personal view of salvation is logically inseparable from vindication of them as a "true" church.

I've said I believe there a saved christians in the Catholic church and they don't necissarily need to feel "led" to leave the Catholic Church in order to be such. Now the rest of your post is telling because History as a point of fact is something you seem to want to re-write. History just is. And we have a very good idea of it based on all the writings, finds, etc.... I think that actual science of history doesn't agree with your conclussions makes it a difficult pill for you to swallow.

For if their view of the gospel and salvation is "accursed" then obviously their history is the history of an "accursed" institution with an "accursed" gospel and that would greatly substantiate the charge of a revisionist history as true churches with the true gospel must be sought outside of Rome and its historical perspective.

It is clear you don't know their view of the gospel. You might come out with something more intelligent. However, You 've also shown in this quote something I've mentioned on the other thread. You believe in only your view of the Gospel must be believed. To include the consepts of Justification and the rest. Which makes things pretty problematic for you and your view of a simple gospel. You bely the fact that what a person must do to be saved is to a call on the name of the Lord. You've indicated they must be lock step with you.

You cannot discredit Rome or the historical perspective of Rome without discrediting your own view of the gospel and justification as their institution and history is a defense of your own soteriological essentials.

And again you've applied something which you don't understand. You still don't know where I am on justification. And that is your pattern instead of honest discourse when I present another view you make it personal and whether I hold the belief or not you place it on me.

I will make it easy on you and tell you my view of Justification. I was Justified when I believed in Jesus Christ and submitted myself to him. At was at that point placed in past the gates of salvation. Everytime I choose obedience to him I am Justified in that I'm being Sanctified but am no more justified than that very first time and that very first time I inhereted the promise of eternal life. As I become sanctified I am no more worthy of the promise than what I recieved that first time. However, I am being re-made continually in the image of Jesus Christ. That is my view. So now you actually have it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Then an interesting question you just brought up. Did the RCC crush all the Muslim texts and create spurious text to make them seem Catholic? We know they went to war with them. Do any trustworthy statements of faith still exist from the early Muslim days?

Great point they would have had to, to match what was said about the Paulicans! I suppose they would in that they couldn't understand it apart from their Catholic Context! Good one.

 

[DHK]

The Question then DHK is if as you suggest the Catholic Church were to dispense of all the muslim writings and artifacts, and buildings and act as if they never existed and all we had to go on was the writings of "Catholic Monks" Would you have made the connection - Well baptist were known as muslims in the 5th century. I mean all we would know right is.
1) they abhore statues

So they say. And yet they worship some, especially when they take their yearly pilgrimage. They worship at the ka'aba an act of idolatry. It is not just the place; but where are their prayers at that time directed? It is not Allah.

2) they believed in Christ

The Christ of Islam is a demon-inspired Christ. It is not the Christ of the Bible. In Islam he is simply a prophet of less status than Mohammed, and he certainly is not deity.

3) they held to a strict moral code

Complete with polygamy. It was strict compared to the animism of the day; not compared to Christianity. Your belief in relativism is showing.

4) they were prolific writers but unfortunately we don't have their works because of the Catholic Conspiracy

I have read many of their works. Some of them extoll how they treat women better than any other religion, which is a blatant lie. I could quote some fairly condemnatory Koranic surahs to that effect.

5) They grew around the regon of Saudi Arabia primarily at Mecca and Medina.

So did the Animists.

6) they were zealous for God.

So are the Hindus. They even sacrifice their own children to their gods.

And that would be about it because anything else that the catholics would say would automatically be discredited by you and others as being false. So then you would draw you lineage to the Waldenseians to the Muslims to the Paulicans to the Montanist. Even though each of these groups are distinctive enough from the baptist as not to be a forerunner.

According to the above your views of Biblical Christianity is sick, twisted, and ignorant.

 

[DHK]

Great point they would have had to, to match what was said about the Paulicans! I suppose they would in that they couldn't understand it apart from their Catholic Context! Good one.

Josh McDowell quotes from Pictall's "The Glorious Koran" in giving us the information of how the Koran came to be:

All the surahs of the Koran had been recorded in writing before the Prophet's death, and many Muslims had committed the whole Koran to memory. But the written surahs were dispersed among the people; and when, in a battle which took place during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr--that is to say, within two years of the Prophet's death--a large number of those who knew the whole Koran by heart were killed, a collection of the whole Koran was made and put in writing. In the Caliphate of Othman, all existing copies of surahs were called in, and an authoritative version, based on Abu Bakr's collection and the testimony of those who had the whole Koran by heart, was compiled exactly in the present form and order, which is regarded as traditional and as the arrangement of the Prophet himself, the Caliph Othman and his helpers being Comrades of the Prophet and the most devout students of the Revelation. The Koran has thus been very carefully preserved (Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, trans., The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, New York: Mentor Books, n.d., p. xxviii).

See the difference.
The Bible has more than 5,000 MSS.


The Muslim leaders burned all existing MSS and came up with one, after having dealt with any passages that may have been contradictions. This way they could say there were no contradictions, and there is no proof. They burned the evidence.



If they are so deceitful concerning their own history what would be their attitude concerning the history of others?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So they say. And yet they worship some, especially when they take their yearly pilgrimage. They worship at the ka'aba an act of idolatry. It is not just the place; but where are their prayers at that time directed? It is not Allah.

The Christ of Islam is a demon-inspired Christ. It is not the Christ of the Bible. In Islam he is simply a prophet of less status than Mohammed, and he certainly is not deity.

Complete with polygamy. It was strict compared to the animism of the day; not compared to Christianity. Your belief in relativism is showing.

I have read many of their works. Some of them extoll how they treat women better than any other religion, which is a blatant lie. I could quote some fairly condemnatory Koranic surahs to that effect.

So did the Animists.

So are the Hindus. They even sacrifice their own children to their gods.


According to the above your views of Biblical Christianity is sick, twisted, and ignorant.

Now DHK you know better than that. I uphold actual history. But here I've made a question with regard to the muslims. If what you hold to be true of the Roman Catholic Church and the Montanist, Paulicans, Waldensians, etc were applied to muslims which we have a plethera of information but put it in such a frame as though - and as you claim - the Catholics were to have wipe out all traces of their previous existance with none of the things we have today; by your logic you could include them in the history of the Baptist.

Because the Truth of the Matter is that The Paulicans, Waldensians, the Montanist are as seperate from Baptist as are the Catholics themselves. You are only relying on the fact that there is not much to go on and what we do have to go on in insist is false but can not provide any other document to further your position so you are arguing for this position presumably from silence to which I can say if we applied the same to islam You would have included them. But since Islam is still existant today and we have their works you can easily deny them. I suggest if the same were true of these groups (still existed today) you would easily dismiss them as well.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Josh McDowell quotes from Pictall's "The Glorious Koran" in giving us the information of how the Koran came to be:

See the difference.
The Bible has more than 5,000 MSS.


The Muslim leaders burned all existing MSS and came up with one, after having dealt with any passages that may have been contradictions. This way they could say there were no contradictions, and there is no proof. They burned the evidence.



If they are so deceitful concerning their own history what would be their attitude concerning the history of others?

My point is no matter how much you attempt to destroy something there is always evidence for it. History has shown this to be true. History just is. The Roman Catholics could not wipe out all the gnostic writings even though they tride. The Roman Catholics Could not wipe out all history of the Myans even though they've tried. It is impossible to wipe out all traces of any people's though its been tried again ad infinitum. Your conspiracy fails. History and Science work hand in hand and we know the truth of things. Because you want to believe something doesn't make it true. Paulicans were not baptist, montanist were not baptist, niether were the Waldensians.

 

[Dr. Walter]

To say that I don't understand the Roman Catholic view of salvation is so absurdly rediculous that it hardly deserves comment. To make that charge stick you have to claim that every single converted Catholic on this forum who agrees with my assessment equally does not understand what the Catholic church teaches about salvation - which is beyond absurdity as anyone reading the Catholic Catechism can plainly see that they do not believe in a completed state of justification at faith in the gospel. You claim to be a "Baptist" (in name only as far as I am concerned) and yet no Baptist that I know of (and I know of thousands) and no confession of faith embraces the view of salvation spelled out clearly in the Roman Catholic Catechism.

People do not tenaciously defend what they do not believe to be defendable. You tenaciously defend progressive justification. Only a fool or a deciever tenaciously defends what he personally believes to be error and fights against what he personally beleives to be truth. Such a person can never be taken seriously as their very methodology betrays them as caprious and flippant in handling God's Word rather than a serious student of God's Word set for its defense and whose interest is the truth. No Christian in God's Word ever debated or used God's Word in that fashion.

See you're funny. I've been discussing on the other thread how someone reading the same scriptures can come to a different conclussion about faith than you seem to believe such as in justification. At no time in our discussion have I mentioned that I believe in progressive justification. Yet you immediately make it personal. You assume I hold to that view. When I'm showing you the falacy of belief that if we are truly bible alone we will have the same view with regard to the basis of the faith. I've shown you differently. So at this point you don't really know my position on justification. You only know that I've given good support for progressive justification with in the writings of the NT and can provide more if I chose but I made it simple.



I also find this funny. I suggest you read my testimony again. The only thing that you can pin on me that would be similar to this is that I believe Christianity has evolved somewhat from the 1st Century and there isn't any real going back. Now that doesn't mean there is new revelation. contrarily how we understand and apply the ancient faith has evolved. But it still doesn't match with your assertion. I'm speaking from a purely historical sense here and matched it with fact. The current day baptist were no more like the 1st Century Christians than the Current day Catholic or Orthodox. However, this doesn't affect any view on justification.


I've never said the Catholic Church was the True Church of Christ I've shown their views and progressive history of the Catholic Church which has evolved into all the divergent churches of today to include Copts and Orthodox. You still don't know what my view of Justification is.


I've said I believe there a saved christians in the Catholic church and they don't necissarily need to feel "led" to leave the Catholic Church in order to be such. Now the rest of your post is telling because History as a point of fact is something you seem to want to re-write. History just is. And we have a very good idea of it based on all the writings, finds, etc.... I think that actual science of history doesn't agree with your conclussions makes it a difficult pill for you to swallow.
It is clear you don't know their view of the gospel. You might come out with something more intelligent. However, You 've also shown in this quote something I've mentioned on the other thread. You believe in only your view of the Gospel must be believed. To include the consepts of Justification and the rest. Which makes things pretty problematic for you and your view of a simple gospel. You bely the fact that what a person must do to be saved is to a call on the name of the Lord. You've indicated they must be lock step with you.
And again you've applied something which you don't understand. You still don't know where I am on justification. And that is your pattern instead of honest discourse when I present another view you make it personal and whether I hold the belief or not you place it on me.

I will make it easy on you and tell you my view of Justification. I was Justified when I believed in Jesus Christ and submitted myself to him. At was at that point placed in past the gates of salvation. Everytime I choose obedience to him I am Justified in that I'm being Sanctified but am no more justified than that very first time and that very first time I inhereted the promise of eternal life. As I become sanctified I am no more worthy of the promise than what I recieved that first time. However, I am being re-made continually in the image of Jesus Christ. That is my view. So now you actually have it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

To say that I don't understand the Roman Catholic view of salvation is so absurdly rediculous that it hardly deserves comment. To make that charge stick you have to claim that every single converted Catholic on this forum who agrees with my assessment equally does not understand what the Catholic church teaches about salvation - which is beyond absurdity as anyone reading the Catholic Catechism can plainly see that they do not believe in a completed state of justification at faith in the gospel. You claim to be a "Baptist" (in name only as far as I am concerned) and yet no Baptist that I know of (and I know of thousands) and no confession of faith embraces the view of salvation spelled out clearly in the Roman Catholic Catechism.

People do not tenaciously defend what they do not believe to be defendable. You tenaciously defend progressive justification. Only a fool or a deciever tenaciously defends what he personally believes to be error and fights against what he personally beleives to be truth. Such a person can never be taken seriously as their very methodology betrays them as caprious and flippant in handling God's Word rather than a serious student of God's Word set for its defense and whose interest is the truth. No Christian in God's Word ever debated or used God's Word in that fashion.

What Catholic on this forum says that they have a works based faith as is your assesment? Not one would agree with that assessment. So No you don't understand their faith. You would suggest they pray to statues yet what CAtholic here says they do that? There are two points right there that makes the claim stick.

You claim to be a "Baptist" (in name only as far as I am concerned) and yet no Baptist that I know of (and I know of thousands) and no confession of faith embraces the view of salvation spelled out clearly in the Roman Catholic Catechism.

This goes right to the heart of your inability to read what has been said. Did you not read what I posted with regard to justification? I suggest you would be hard pressed to find a baptist who disagreed with it. Didn't I already tell you I left the Catholic Church? Again we see your Motus Aperandi. Get personal. Make personal attack.

People do not tenaciously defend what they do not believe to be defendable.

two points. You are discussing two different things. 1) what I believe 2) what I believe to be defensable. I personally believe that atheism is defensable and can use the scriptures to support it. And if we had that discussion I'm certain you would claim I'm an athiest. And btw People do this all the time. Just because you don't doesn't mean other do. And by the way as I've said before once something is properly defined we can argue it. I've made a point why Catholicism and Orthodoxy are wrong. But your so stubborn that you can't get past the view that I'm Catholic you can't even talk about that subject matter on that thread.

 

[Eric B]

1) they abhore statues
2) they believed in Christ
3) they held to a strict moral code
4) they were prolific writers but unfortunately we don't have their works because of the Catholic Conspiracy
5) They grew around the regon of Saudi Arabia primarily at Mecca and Medina.
6) they were zealous for God.

So they say. And yet they worship some, especially when they take their yearly pilgrimage. They worship at the ka'aba an act of idolatry. It is not just the place; but where are their prayers at that time directed? It is not Allah.

The Christ of Islam is a demon-inspired Christ. It is not the Christ of the Bible. In Islam he is simply a prophet of less status than Mohammed, and he certainly is not deity.

Complete with polygamy. It was strict compared to the animism of the day; not compared to Christianity. Your belief in relativism is showing.

I have read many of their works. Some of them extoll how they treat women better than any other religion, which is a blatant lie. I could quote some fairly condemnatory Koranic surahs to that effect.

So did the Animists.

So are the Hindus. They even sacrifice their own children to their gods.

According to the above your views of Biblical Christianity is sick, twisted, and ignorant.

I understood the point there was, if all of those details were omitted or lost or glossed over, or claimed to be false accusations of Rome, they could be painted as proto-Baptists as well on those points.

Also, would be hard to believe that all of this is just "Catholic misrepresentation":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulicianism

 

[Dr. Walter]

What Catholic on this forum says that they have a works based faith as is your assesment?

What I said was that the Catholic Catechism declares a works based faith not the converted Catholics on this forum!!!! If they were not converted they would continue in the Catholic works based faith but they do not.

Hence, I do understand perfectly that the Roman Catechism teaches a progressive justification whereas those who have been converted out of Catholicism on this Forum do not. A man is judged by his fruits, not merely the fruits of his actions but the fruits of his words. According to the fruit of your words I do not count you as one converted from the Catholic works based faith principle of justification but rather a continuing defender of it (even though you may reject the particular Catholic form or expressions of that principle of progressive justification by works).

Why is it that you are the ONLY one on this forum or any forum that I have ever been on (5) that vehemently and passionately defends error and then gets mad when accused of believing what you defend?????????? I do not know of any elite debaters that do this, do you????

I certainly did read what you posted in regard to justification. You ardently defend progressive justification without a hint of any other view as your personal position. People who do have convictions will say, "I personally believe BUT here is a problem to my view....etc."

If so many people have the same problem with you, and by your own confession they do, then, does not that prove your modus operandi is deceptive and the cause of the very problem you are complaining about - misrepresentation?????? and confusion????????

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What I said was that the Catholic Catechism declares a works based faith not the converted Catholics on this forum!!!! If they were not converted they would continue in the Catholic works based faith but they do not.

Ah yes. Whether they admit it or not? Right?

Hence, I do understand perfectly that the Roman Catechism teaches a progressive justification whereas those who have been converted out of Catholicism on this Forum do not. A man is judged by his fruits, not merely the fruits of his actions but the fruits of his words. According to the fruit of your words I do not count you as one converted from the Catholic works based faith principle of justification but rather a continuing defender of it (even though you may reject the particular Catholic form or expressions of that principle of progressive justification by works).

Again no matter what they say. How you interpret something may not be how 1) it is defined 2) how others see it.

Why is it that you are the ONLY one on this forum or any forum that I have ever been on (5) that vehemently and passionately defends error and then gets mad when accused of believing what you defend?????????? I do not know of any elite debaters that do this, do you????

I know a ton. Ton of course is an exageration but sufficient to convey the principle I know many. Some of whom are my friends.

I certainly did read what you posted in regard to justification. You ardently defend progressive justification without a hint of any other view as your personal position. People who do have convictions will say, "I personally believe BUT here is a problem to my view....etc."

Ah clearly then you aren't distinguishing what I so clearly identified as sanctification. Which places you in your own view of what Catholics believe which I find humorous.

If so many people have the same problem with you, and by your own confession they do, then, does not that prove your modus operandi is deceptive and the cause of the very problem you are complaining about - misrepresentation?????? and confusion????????

I like "so many" I can easily say so many have a problem with you. The issue at hand is people who are of like mind with you have the same issue. But that is no supprise. Salvation for me is a lot simpler than it is for you. If you believe that Jesus is the Messiah and was Raised on the Third day and that he is comming again and hold to the principle of the trinity and are submitted to this belief than you are saved. You don't have to agree perfectly with me. However you've clearly made the caveat that persons must agree with you 100% in order to be saved. Thus in my mind Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodist, Congragationalist, Amish, Mennonites, Baptist (of all stripes), Pentecostals, and all orthodox believing christians are saved. It is exampled by their life and participation in their faith. It is clearly evident in all their demeanor. This group of saved people in the denominations I've pointed out are truelly called the Church though it seems Invisible is plainly evident by those looking on. I think for you this consept is hateful. And thus you have my sympathies.

 

[chadman]

Yeah - ok I have to admit, Dr. Walter's perception of what is takes to get saved bugs me too. It's overly complicated. When I first trusted Christ as savior - I was told as a young boy that Jesus was the Son of God, that he died for our sins, was resurrected and salvation was a free gift of God for those who believe in Jesus as the Son of God and saviour. That if I called upon His name, asked forgiveness of my sins, and desired to repent, I would be saved.

I believed this. I felt convicted in my core of cores, and I prayed a prayer asking for forgiveness and calling upon Jesus to save me.

I didn't understand the total concpet of justification in theological terms. I didn't understand the arguments and viewpoints on faith vs. works. I didn't know we had to reconcile earnestly Paul and James' taching on works and faith (for Protestants only, Catholics don't have this issue). I wasn't a theologian guys.

Did Jesus hear my prayer, and see my heart? Yes He did.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ah yes. Whether they admit it or not? Right?

What forum are you reading from????? Can't you read the converted Catholics who are opposing you on this forum???? Do I have to name them????? Some have been into Catholicism for 20 to 35 years and you are going to tell them they don't understand the salvation doctrine of Rome? Why are they defending my salvation position if they agree with you? Come on, this is rediculous!

Again no matter what they say. How you interpret something may not be how 1) it is defined 2) how others see it.

I have been a Christian for nearly 40 years and an ardent student of the Bible most of those years. You really think that I can't tell the difference between what I believe as a Baptist versus what the Catholic Catechism teaches about salvation? Do you really believe these ex-Catholics don't understand that their new faith in the gospel is different than their past Roman beliefs? Come one, this is rediculous!

I know a ton. Ton of course is an exageration but sufficient to convey the principle I know many. Some of whom are my friends.

Do your friends have the same problem that you have complained about at least since the time I have been on this forum? If so, don't you think that it is the person's responsibility who uses such a motiff that creates so much misunderstanding, confusion, and division to change to a more responsible and Christian motif or is God the author of confusion?????

Ah clearly then you aren't distinguishing what I so clearly identified as sanctification. Which places you in your own view of what Catholics believe which I find humorous.

I don't care what you define as justification or sanctification but what the scriptures teach them to be. Rome's view is not the Biblical view nor is it my view and I am perfectly capable of determining what the Roman Catholic Catechism defines as justification versus what I define as justification and they are not the same. The view you are defending may not be Rome's view per se but it is the same view in principle - "works" (see Rom. 3:27).

I like "so many" I can easily say so many have a problem with you.

That is a laugh! Nobody, and I mean Nobody has any doubts where I stand on anything I say. I don't hide behind deceptive arguments or conceal my views on any subject. Your the one who is creating this confusion not I. Your using the Devil's line of defense. When his deceptions are exposed he simply attacks the one exposing them rather than deal with his own problems that he is the author.

The issue at hand is people who are of like mind with you have the same issue.

Finally! Confession is good for the soul. People who are like minded with me in regard to the Biblical doctrine of justification as a completed action at the point of faith in the gospel have no other recourse but to agree with the Biblical condemnation of those who deny that essential and fundemental truth of the one and only gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).

But that is no supprise. Salvation for me is a lot simpler than it is for you. If you believe that Jesus is the Messiah and was Raised on the Third day and that he is comming again and hold to the principle of the trinity and are submitted to this belief than you are saved.

That surely does not represent my view!!!!! I don't believe you have to know anything about the Trinity to be saved. I don't believe you have to be a theologion to be saved. I believe that you simply have to believe in what God reveals to you through the gospel to be saved - later you can be taught other things (Mt. 28:20). That is precisely why I said a person can be saved regardless of what denomination he might belong to. Simple faith in Christ as sufficient to satisfy God's wrath against you and meet your need as a sinner is all you need to know to be saved. HOWEVER, THAT SIMPLE FAITH IN THE GOSPEL AS SUFFICIENT TO SAVE YOU DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE BIBILICAL DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

Any profession of faith or confession to be a Christian that does contradict the Biblical doctrine of justification is evidence of a lost religious person (Mt. 7:21-23) as they reject the very "foundation" of salvation.

You are right, I do not believe that mere profession with religious practice and convictions or devout lives prove anything as man is naturally religious and devout to whatever he commits himself to (Mt. 7:22). Demeanor can be deceptive and the fruits of the Spirit can be counterfeited. However, the truth of the gospel does not change nor does it depend upon any externals whatsoever although it is manifested by such externals.

And thus you have my sympathies.

Your salvation is all about the house whereas Christ's salvation is all about the "foundation." There are houses built on both foundations - the sand foundation of justification by the principle of works and the foundation of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. You need to believe in the true gospel of Christ and you can keep your sympathies because I don't need them.

 

[targus]

Yeah - ok I have to admit, Dr. Walter's perception of what is takes to get saved bugs me too. It's overly complicated. When I first trusted Christ as savior - I was told as a young boy that Jesus was the Son of God, that he died for our sins, was resurrected and salvation was a free gift of God for those who believe in Jesus as the Son of God and saviour. That if I called upon His name, asked forgiveness of my sins, and desired to repent, I would be saved.

I believed this. I felt convicted in my core of cores, and I prayed a prayer asking for forgiveness and calling upon Jesus to save me.

I didn't understand the total concpet of justification in theological terms. I didn't understand the arguments and viewpoints on faith vs. works. I didn't know we had to reconcile earnestly Paul and James' taching on works and faith (for Protestants only, Catholics don't have this issue). I wasn't a theologian guys.

Did Jesus hear my prayer, and see my heart? Yes He did.

Yes, it would seem that the good "Doctor" Walter is preaching a gospel of works if one must have a correct theological understanding in order to be saved.